If you are pro-choice in the abortion debate, then when exactly do you think a fetus becomes a "life" and is deserving of rights? And how do you support that believe?

The thing is, the pro-choice movement and the pro-life movement aren't focusing on the same things. Pro-life are focused on when the foetus becomes a 'person', but the pro-choice movement isn't based around that. It's based on bodily autonomy. Personhood isn't the question. The question is, should a person be forced to give up their own body in order to save another person?

But parents are held accountable if their child dies *before* they ask for help. Why are they forced to even ask for help? That's their time and their body?

FWIW, the entire point of the post is to address the "stretch". If you're not willing to address it, then the pro-choice argument collapses. If you *really* believe what you're saying, then you have to, in principle, accept that a mother could dispose of a fetus 24 hours before birth.

When I say 'that's a stretch' I'm saying that you're stretching by trying to apply a strawman. Carrying a pregnancy to term, alongside the associated complications and risks, is not the same as picking up a phone and asking for help with a child that you cannot cope with (and also forcing people to have unwanted children just increases neglect anyway so I don't know why this is a point for you).

I do believe that a pregnant person should be able to choose to become unpregnant at any point in the pregnancy. Whether or not that produces a child depends on whether or not the baby is able to live on its own.

Plenty of people choose to have a c-section before 'natural' birth - i.e., choosing to become no longer pregnant.

C-sections aren't abortions. And my argument isn't a straw-man. A straw-man would be setting up another irrelevant argument, but mine is very relevant, and likely to happen if we removed restrictions. So you've still not answered the question really. Do you believe a mother can *abort*, ie kill, a fetus at any point? That's the question.

I already answered your question. I believe that someone should be able to choose to become not pregnant at any point. Killing the foetus is a side effect of the removal of the pregnancy. You're focusing on the death of the foetus where a viable foetus would not be killed in late term terminations.

Okay. I was just clarifying that you admit and support the implication, and that the implication is not a straw man). A mother could remove a fetus 36 hours (1 hour, 1 day, whatever) before birth with no obligation to keep it alive. The fetus could be perfectly viable 2 weeks before birth, but in your eyes the mother can still abort it, correct?

The issue is that 'abortion' is a misnomer in this case. If the foetus is viable after birth then it will be kept alive. It has its own body autonomy once it is removed from the pregnant person - the doctors therefore have a duty of care if it is able to survive on its own.

The aim of an abortion is not to kill the foetus, it's to stop being pregnant. If the foetus is able to survive after the pregnancy is terminated, they don't just kill it.

Why are they forced to even ask for help? That's their time and their body?

You don't really think that's how the body autonomy argument works, I hope. No one is advocating that everyone just do literally anything they want "because it's their body". You can't assault someone just because you feel like it. You can get sent to prison for breaking the law. And you certainly can't leave a baby to starve without telling anyone about it.

The argument concerns your ownership of your *physical biological body* and your ability to make medical decisions for yourself, with your own safety and self interest in mind. Fetuses are hardly alone in not being able to lay legal claim to the use of someone else's biology against their will. You and I can't do that either. No government should be hijacking anyone's body for the medical benefit of anyone else, no matter what the situation, how it arose or what application of blame.

My point is that I'm pushing your principle to the limit, and it breaks down. So obviously there is some point at which your principle stops working, and that's what I'm trying to figure out, what is that point for you. I don't make the rules about how procreation works. A fetuses life isn't tied to the mother by some law, nature did that.

But regardless, my comment still stands, that you must accept that a mother could remove a fetus for whatever reason, prior to birth, even if it's just a few days, and that should be permissible, right?

You seem not to have noticed that I'm not the person you were talking to before, and you also seem to have missed the entire point of my comment.

Another user explained that it is not about personhood for the pro-choice, but about body autonomy. You then asked if body autonomy included not being forced to tell someone that you don't plan to care for a child and I told you that no, that is not in fact what medical body autonomy means. You cannot then claim that you are "pushing the principle to the limit" after having it explained to you that your "limit" does not logically follow from the autonomy argument.

There is no point at which someone else's needs supersede a person's ownership of their physical body and considerations for their own medical safety and health. It doesn't matter the age nor level of development.

In answer to your question: there exists a continuum of medical options and risk, over the course of a pregnancy. At the very beginning of the process, it is obvious which option is medically safer and better for someone's health - a simple abortion pill vs carrying a pregnancy to full term. It is not, in my view, acceptable to artificially deny a person that medically safer option for the sake of someone else. At the other end of the process - say, a day before the due date or even a week - there is clearly no available medical option that is physically safer for the pregnant woman than just going through normal labor (or c-section if necessary), and that available option can easily result in a live infant. So, at some point during a pregnancy, it will become true that there is no longer a medically less-risky option for the woman that necessitates the termination of the fetus and at that point yes, there is clearly no reason not to keep that fetus alive.

But you and I should not be making those judgement calls about medical risk, because it's not the same for every person. That's what I'd like to see, ideally: [if and only if] all possible options carry equal medical risk for the woman in a given pregnancy, as determined by her and her professional doctor, priority can then be given to keeping the fetus alive.

That scenario is an inapplicable reversal of this scenario. Nature has already created the "life" (if you consider it that). "Taking" action would end the life. In the liver scenario, no action is taken, the life ends naturally, no one is responsible for that action.

It ends unnaturally, due to disease. No, no one is at fault (sometimes), just like no one is at fault in abortions, because you can't compel someone to give up their body for you in any other circumstances

I didn't say "fault" specifically for that reason. But for an abortion someone is most certainty "responsible". Someone took action. That implies causality. The situations are reversed and not comparable.

That's an interesting question. In this context, no. There was never any obligation. In other contexts, inaction is already widely accepted as illegal. I.e. not feeding your kids. So maybe that's another debate :) I have no clue. But no, there is no obligation here, without obligation, inaction is inaction.

So no one has any obligation at all to help others? Even when someone's life is on the line?

It depends on the inaction. Witnessing a crime and not coming forward isn't always illegal. If someone bangs on my door and asks to come in, not getting up to open it isn't illegal. Watching someone rob a bank isn't illegal. But all of these are choices that people are making.

In general, no, in-action is not illegal. It's only illegal in the case of obligation, which is what I said was an interesting debate, but I can't find relevance here. In-action is perfectly legal an no one holds responsibility. Which is different than abortion. Abortion is an action. There is responsibility.

I am pro-choice, and I look at this issue from a different point-of-view. For whatever reason, biology has declared that the female carries the unborn, at least in our species. Her body changes to support this life and she is at non-trivial risk accordingly. Therefore, I believe that no one but that woman has the right or even the ability to decide whether she is ready and willing to undertake this endeavor. Everything else flows from that.

I'm talking about at-will abortion in general, for any reason. The question is in that context, because most pro-choice people support *some form* of at-will, but can't exactly define what, when, or why.So do you support at-will abortion 1 hour before birth?

I'm making no assumptions whatsoever. I'm simply asking "do you support x". Asking a question isn't making an assumption. And "if you support x, then why". Anyone who supports something should be able to reasonably explain why. It seems you're refusing to do that.

You're saying you "dont" support abortion (and yes, by abortion I mean removing the fetus and not even attempting to keep it alive) 1 hour before birth, right? If so, then I have further questions, but if you're saying you wont answer them then I wont ask them.

Okay, first: I said presume not assume. You're not assuming anything. You are presuming something to be true based on your personal beliefs and what you believe to be sound (everybody does this).

Let me rephrase: I can't answer your question properly because you're asking me to answer 'yes' or 'no,' to something I don't believe I can offer a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I do not believe 'an abortion one hour before birth' is an abortion by the nature of abortion because The fetus could survive outside of the uterus and to remove the baby from the uterus would be more like induced labour.

What I can tell you is this: If someone gives birth (naturally or not) and leaves the baby to die, I 100% think that's a morally corrupt act.

But I also think it's morally corrupt to force the birth of a child that may be unwanted or may be raised by people who are not ready to parent the child, who may end up in foster care, who may experience any number of things that could diminish their quality of life. If someone is willing to have an abortion, they are not fit or ready to be a parent and we should not force them to be a parent or put a child in that situation.

I'm sure this is not true of all pro-lifers, but I don't believe 'pro-life' is a proper term to describe the movement. I think 'pro-birth' is more suitable because I don't see pro-lifers doing much to ensure the a quality of life for the birth of the child they so vehemently advocated for.

I agree pro-lifers arent doing enough, but I also believe they arguing religiously, which is easy to defeat. Posing a real logical argument much tougher to defeat. So if we go back to the scenario, It seems you've clarified (correct me if im wrong) -If a baby *can* survive outside the mother, then true abortion (ie kiling, whatever the proper word may be) is wrong and should be illegal (to some degree), correct? Because it's murder at that point?

Also, If someone gives birth (even unnaturally) and doesnt attempt to care for the fetus (i.e. at a hospital) then that is also wrong, and should be illegal?

Is that all correct? I realize they're very specific scenarios, but they have wider implications, and I feel i shouldnt even proceed unless we agree on that stuff?

It's a good question. I have a couple of quibbles about how you worded it, but I am willing to take a swing at your intended question. The word, "forcible" isn't relevant here. I will take it to mean, "rather than letting the birth process proceed", rather than, "against her will", which would seem to be in conflict with "a mother could have".

I would have to ask, why is she having the fetus removed? Is the woman's life in danger? If so, then, yes, I would say she is within her rights to have the fetus removed. If her life is not in danger and she just "wants it out", or whatever, then I would say, no, the procedure is too risky for her and the fetus for no appreciable benefit. This is more of a medical ethics issue.

As to, "leave it for dead", that part is just silly and inflammatory. "Leaving it for dead" is not necessarily required after removing it, since, as you say, it's hours away from birth and presumably viable. It's a false choice to say that removing the fetus must also require leaving it for dead. Still, I'll take a swing at this one, too. Assuming the fetus has been removed for medically necessary reasons and the mother does not want it, it can very easily be taken care of by the same medical professional that removed it and then placed for adoption.

By "leave it for dead" what I mean is that she is not intending to give it to a hospital to attempt to keep it alive. It was her body, and she didn't want it. It's inflammatory only because the situation is taboo.

I used to stand where you are. That late term is just not right, but I had to ask myself why. What is it about some very specific time point that makes it "not right". I was unable to find any time point that actually defined "life". And for that reason I'm unable to currently support abortion in any fashion except to save the mother, and that's because I don't see any point in potentially killing two people. But at-will abortions simply dont have any moral reasoning behind them, that I can find.

I understand your position. I agree that it's difficult to construct a logical, deductive argument that clearly supports one position or another. To a certain extent, it comes down to, "this, I believe" and we'll likely differ, many of us.

If the "leave it for dead" argument does not include medical help, does it make sense, though? I mean, what feasible scenario are you describing? I say this not because I'm trying to pick a fight, I just don't think it supports your position from a logical sense.

The rest of what you said, about a certain point of time beyond which it's not ok, makes a lot of sense. I think it's morally difficult to point at a specific day in the development of the fetus and say, "before this, good, after this, bad".

It's not an easy issue. If you support access to abortion, you have to agree that the mother can have her fetus removed and it will almost certainly not be viable. Does it have have a soul? Does it have rights?

If you don't support access to abortion, you have to agree that the government can prevent someone from controlling what happens to her own body.

I agree it's difficult as well, but I guess I believe one side is much more difficult to justify than the other. I think "leave it for dead" basically means that someone could take a pill to cause an abortion late term simply because they changed their mind. This is valid because no one has been able to make a solid argument against late term abortions (so far in our thread), so this scenario is perfectly plausible. If you make an argument against late-term, then you take on the burden of justifying it.

My belief is that thus far I must believe that the fetus is alive, and I believe "talking action" to end a life for only reasons of convenience is wrong. That doesn't mean that abortion will never happen, but it implies a *far higher standard* than simply at-will. And it's based purely on the fact that, inconvenient or not, pregnancy ties you to another life. That may be a very damning concept, but it's true (again, because I believe fetuses are alive, and that life is scared).

This argument makes a lot of sense: the "take a pill" scenario is feasible, even if such a thing doesn't exactly exist today for a late-term abortion, it's certainly within the realm of possibility in the future, I would think.

Yeah, your position is logically consistent and based on your clearly stated moral position. It's tough to argue against, as this issue is tough to argue about in general.

Is it preferable to compel a woman who cannot adequately care for a newborn carry it to term? This is rhetorical, I don't demand that you address it. It's a difficult issue.

That's one of the most difficult questions for pro-lifers. Not difficult in terms of my answer, but difficult in the implications (similar to asking average pro-choicers to address their implications). My answer is that the child is a life, and that if the mother abandons it, then we must care for it. I would hope that the ideal scenario is to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with. But when they happen, society has an implicit (and pretty widely acknowledge, in principle) obligation to care for it's children. Some people see that as crazy, but those sort of morals are partly what separate us from most animal species.

There is also the question of whether to hold the mother accountable, but it's sort of irrelevant to the question of what to do with the child if and when it is abandoned.

Okay. That's what I'm getting at, and that's where many pro-choice supports tend to fall by the wayside. They won't acknowledge the implication of their beliefs. So in your opinion, 36 hours before birth, a mother could have someone forcibly remove the fetus from her body, and leave it to die. It's her body, correct?

Does it matter? It's her body. That's the implication of that argument. I'm fine if you believe that, but I just want to see how many people actually acknowledge and support the idea of letting fetuses 36 hours from birth, die. I had this conversation with a friend and they refused to address it.

It's just a strange situation, if there's a medical reason then yes abort and save the mother so she can try again if she wants to. But if it's just cause she changed her mind that's really a shame but still not my decision to make for her. Usually abortions would be done before going through the hardship of full pregnancy.

It's definitely strange, but not at all unlikely if they removed the current restrictions. You say it's a "shame", but that's kind of vague. Does that mean you personally believe that the fetus is "alive"?

It's a shame because at that point the baby would survive on its own and they've already gone through the hardship of pregnancy so what exactly are they saving themselves from, and yes it's alive. Being pro choice doesn't mean I think it's wrong or right, it's not my place to decide, it's the mother's choice.

Is that a rational stance you really take? It implies that what you think is wrong or right is not applicable to anyone else. You think theft is wrong (Im assuming, just as an example), but you're saying you wouldn't force that moral upon anyone else?

The only problem there is that you didn't outline your stance on that. You're pointing out these issues while refusing to weigh in. If a main stole bread for no other reason than to steal it, is that wrong? And would you punish him? Why? Its not your place to decide, right?

Kind of a red herring to frame the issue in vitalist terms. There clearly is no specific point at which a fetus becomes a "life". It's a fuzzy concept. The cells that make up sperm and egg are alive, as are the cells that make up a person, and everything else that's alive. Thinking about abortion only needs to be pragmatic, not metaphysical. What's the best action to take in a given situation? Sometimes it might be abortion, sometimes it might not. I see no reason to take a principled "side" on this particular issue.

If you genuinely do believe that it is "alive" at some point, and has definable rights, then you must accept the fact that you're implying it has no rights at one point, and has some at another. Even if you look at it from a pragmatic point of view, you still have to consider purely at-will abortions. e.g. I changed my mind at 7 months. Dont want it any more. That's a perfectly viable scenario.

It's also viable for it to be morally acceptable to violate another's rights in some circumstances. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that "I changed my mind at 7 months" would be one such circumstance, but does anyone ever do that anyway? Generally abortions happen much sooner into a pregnancy than that. At 7 months a fetus/baby could probably survive anyway, so there'd be no reason to abort rather than induce a premature birth.

Not sure if we covered it in our thread, but abortions at 7 months would absolutely happen. Saying there is "no reason" is pretty broad, and I would think inaccurate. Women may not want to go through with the adoption process, and may not want to induce labor even if it would produce a viable child. Even if this is rare, the principle question is that, is it wrong and should it be illegal?Is your standard of illegal/legal "can the fetus survive outside the mother"?

You seem to be suggesting that my only options are that I think human life has value or that it doesn't? That there's no middle ground? I'd just say that pregnancies, abortion etc is all a big grey area. Life has value, in a manner of speaking, but sometimes we might abort babies before they're born. Nature does that quite a lot. Many species eat their own children. No need to take a position on it, it's just something that happens.

Well I only asked that to get a response so that I could show how a non-position doesnt really exist. The argument is...

You think life has value and we should protect it to some degree. Currently we do this by outlining "rights" (Maybe you dont even feel this way)

You believe a fetus is *eventually* is a life

So it seems you have two options from there, either a. it becomes a life at some specific point, or b. its a continuous process, along which we assign it some rights, or partial rights.

If that's the case, then at some point you have to decide what these time points are. So if #1 is true it kind of implies that you need to have a stance on abortion. Now maybe your stance is that all abortions are fine. Birth = rights. But that's a position in and of itself.

I'm not pro choice because I don't believe it's a life. I'm pro choice because if a woman doesn't want to be a mother or can't, she should have the choice of what happens to her body. Also imo it's better than bringing a baby into a world where it can't be taken care of.

Yes, there's adoption but how many kids end up in the system? Also women's bodies are designed to want that baby when it comes due to hormones so it's more likely that they wouldn't have a good life if the mother cannot provide.

I would never personally abort but what a woman does with her body is her choice.

That's not the question though. You seem to be implying that it's not a life deserving of rights. So a mother, 2 days before scheduled birth, could yank her baby out and leave it on the sidewalk, right? Because it's her body? What I'm trying to figure out is exactly how far pro-choice people will push the abortion argument.

Yeah, I should have been clearer, sorry. I believe it's a human with rights after the second trimester. The reason behind this is studies suggest that babies develop consciousness after 6 months in utero.

But with my argument not necessarily about the baby, if a woman knew she was pregnant and got to the second trimester and then decided to abort, I'd be against it. But if she found out during the second trimester and aborted then it would be different in my eyes.

For me personally even in the first trimester, my baby would be human with rights which is why I couldn't personally do it.

That's where a lot of pro-choice supporters stand, and it's where I personally used to stand. So I guess my question then becomes about the timeline. What is so special about that *exact* moment? If a mother scheduled an appointment *right at the end of the trimester* and then missed the appointment due to traffic, and came back Monday. Her fetus would suddenly be alive? (FWIW, insert whatever timeline you want in there). What evidence is there that there is an exact moment where that applies. If there isn't an exact moment, then that argument starts to break down and become invalid.

Well, considering that everyone is different and learn speak at different times and learn to walk at different times, I would say it depends on the fetus. I'm not a neonatal specialist and if I had the access to journals, I would try to find some kind of evidence supporting the claim. I think it would be a personal thing for each fetus/baby. Some develop quicker than others.

I wouldn't say the argument becomes invalid because there isn't necessarily an exact moment when it happens. It's all dependant on the development of the fetus.

The source I used suggested that they can experience consciousness from 6 months in utero.

So in what I found, there wasn't a certain answer for exactly when it happens.

What is the measure of consciousness? From what I read the only way to measure is to measure brain activity when you're unconscious and when you're conscious and use the difference. But they can't do that with fetuses.

Of that I have no idea, I would measure it based on reactions but I'm not a specialist. For example, pain response is likely to be there from the very beginning due to evolution but in terms of talking to the baby, does it react? Does it react or move to certain sounds, voices or movements?

It would take a very skilled neonatal scientist to do this accurately but honestly I'm not sure I can give you an answer to that

I've looked into that, and TBH the point where a fetus has a heartbeat and brain activity is *far far earlier* (6 weeks) than the late-term abortion time point (~20 weeks). Which means abortion actually needs to be *more-restrictive* (to someone believed what you believe). But most people simply won't take that stance, even if everything they admit to believing points at it, and they can't explain why.

It’s not my business what a woman does with her fetus. I can only make choices for me. I married a woman who agrees with my stance on abortion.

I understand that argument, but it breaks down if you actually consider the fetus to be alive. Sacrificing a life for the convenience of another could be applied to lots of other scenarios. So do you believe in that general principle? If not, why apply it to this case?

Because life is not all sunshine and puppies. Children die everyday. Do I believe life is worth preserving? Absolutely. But life is about personal choices and it’s hypocritical of me to demand I have that freedom but others can’t because I happen to disagree with their perspective.

You are not responsible for my sins and I’m not yours

Is the fetus alive? Sure but dependent on its mother to live. My daughter was alive, but without a machine she wouldn’t be. A human being is technically a machine. But a machine that can make a choice.

I'm not sure I see how much of that applies. The fact that people die isn't really relevant to the *principle" of preservation of life. Neither is sin. The relevant part is that you're saying you believe that as long as the fetus is dependent upon the mother, then the mother can choose to end its "life" (or existence, whatever we want to call it), correct? It's the dependence that makes the difference?

That's the rub for most people. How far are you willing to push your morals. Most people believe wanton theft is wrong, abusing children is wrong, those are morals, and we push them on to someone else. Why do we draw the line with some things and not others?

But those are *your* morals, and you seem to previously have stated that that doesn't come into play sometimes. i.e. you dont support abortion morally (havent gone into reasons) but you wont apply that morality to others. Why do you chose to apply some morals and not others?

The basic idea is that an individual's own bodily integrity is worth more than another individual's right to life, right.

If your uncle has a failing liver, it is not legal for the state to force you to give up your liver. That violates your bodily integrity. You can choose to give your liver to your uncle, but it can't be forcibly taken from you. If he dies, that is not your fault, because you didn't make him sick.

Likewise. The mother can choose to allow someone else to use her uterus to develop into a baby, but she can't be forced to do so. If removing the baby from her uterus kills it, that is not her fault. If science could keep the baby alive and healthy with no sacrifice of the mother, that is the course that would be taken.

doesn't matter, we're nowhere near that point. we'll cross that moral line when we come to it.

right now, I don't think it's wrong to call abortion morally bankrupt. Self-sacrifice for someone is a moral thing to do. But there is absolutely no legal reason to ban abortion. It'd actually be wrong.

That's perfectly fine. So just to wrap it up, in your opinion, if a mother wanted to remove a fetus 24 hours before birth, she could have someone, or she herself, could do that, and leave the fetus to die, correct? Everyone else would be minding their own business, because that fetus is her body.

It's only illegal because it's illegal. We could make all abortions illegal. So this is less about whether it's currently illegal, and more about how you justify a law, and your reasons. I assume you support that being illegal?

No, I dont support it being illegal No one law will cover every abortion. Let's say she was raped Lets say it was accidental Let's say she found out if she has the child it will be handicapped physically or mentally and doesnt want the child to suffer or doesnt want to lose value of life.

I'm saying that nobody should have the final say except for the mother.

This debate will never end because there are so many different circumstances to each case.

Worry about it when it's your pregnancy. Until then this is a pointless talk IMO.

It's only pointless if you hold the belief that the choice of the mother overrides the life of the fetus (which implies you believe that it's alive with defensible rights). Which it's obvious that you disagree with.

When you say "1 day is extreme" it sort of implies that you think it's morally wrong, or should be illegal. If not, then in principle, you're okay with it, right?

It 100% does, the mother IS the life of the fetus. The fact that, I'm assuming, you feel that your feelings should effect the life of another person at all amazes me. I dont understand that thought process.

The mother is not always equal to the life of the fetus. There is a point in the development in which the fetus could be removed, prior to natural birth, and be completely viable.

If you don't believe feelings affect anything, that implies that you don't think murder and wanton theft should be wrong, right? Why should your feelings about what's right and wrong apply to another person? The argument that people can't apply their morals to other people is disingenuous at best. Everyone applies their morals to other people via law and society in general. Maybe you have different morals, but that doesn't change the fact that you apply them to others.

I don't believe I have any right to force another person into something especially when it comes to their body. There's a lot to take into account, it's not all black and white but it is safe to say that no one likes abortions and taking away women's rights is a dangerous road to go down. There are better ways to reduce the number of abortions like better education and heathcare.

There's definitely ways to reduce them. I'm for those as well. But that doesn't really change the question at hand. When you say "their body", that has implications. Could a woman abort a fetus 1 week before the scheduled birth? Because by that principle they certainly could.

Fetuses start become viable around 24-26 weeks. Many states won't let you get an abortion after or shortly after unless medically necessary and definetly not 1 week before, that would be concidered birth and if she didn't want the baby she can leave it at the hospital. Most abortions caused by unwanted pregnancies happen before this anyway and if not it's usually because they are in an area where they cannot access the service for whatever reason.

Women should be able to speak to informed professionals to figure out what is best for them and given access to the proper services. This is something probirthers fail at, actually caring about all lives involved, before and after the child is born.

I completely understand that, I care about the life and health of the mother as much as that of the child, regardless of what your average pro-lifer seems like.

I'm not really talking about current laws, I'm talking about principles, and how they are defended. If you agree with the current laws, then I'm asking what principles lead you to agree with them? If you believe that late-term abortions are justifiably illegal, then why? Why are they illegal and not others?

This question is poorly informed. Pro choice isn’t about when life does or does not begin. It’s about bodily autonomy.

It’s like asking a pro choice person why they hate women so much. Pro choice is not about prioritizing a woman’s bodily autonomy like pro choice people do, it’s about prioritizing when life begins (as this question intimates).

Trying to get someone to change their deontological stance using consequentialist reasoning almost never works; what we value and prioritize is almost never arrived at logically.

You can’t use the hidden value assumptions of pro life to critique pro choice and vice versa. This question is like telemarketers who call you trying to get you to extend your car’s warranty when you don’t have a car or even a drivers license.

And it doesn't, because a fetus can't survive without intense medical intervention before the full 40 weeks, and there are a lot of complications before then that mean that lifelong intervention will be necessary. Otherwise, everyone would give birth early.

I don't feel so. There are few things that can't be done by someone else in a parenting role.

Sure, I don't care. It's her body and her life. Of course, killing the fetus would endanger her life, as would inducing labor.

She isn't obligated to gestate, protect, or care for, the same way you're not obligated to do it for anyone else. If you're arguing that a fetus has the same rights or should as a human being, then all of these things apply. You can't be forced to care for or give your organs for someone else, even if that means they would die or suffer.

Organ donation is an inapplicable reverse scenario. Not donating an organ is "inaction". The other party would die naturally, there is no causality or responsibility. Abortion is an "action". There is responsibility and causality.But regardless, you've already pretty much answered the question. Abortion, in your mind, even 1 hour prior to birth, is perfectly fine, because as long as the fetus is physically within the mother, it's hers to do whatever she wants with, its her body and her life.

No, making the decision to not become an organ donor isn't inaction. It's taking an action against helping someone. Choosing not to be a caretaker is an action. Gestating a fetus, contrary to what you think, isn't an inaction. There are things that you have to do to make sure that you gestate a healthy fetus and that you don't die in the process. If you just sit around and do nothing, you will not gestate a healthy fetus. There is a responsibility for it, and in many places, not acting on checkups is illegal.

I've already said I don't care about arguments against personhood, but you clearly don't understand pregnancy or giving birth. It's impossible to get an abortion one hour before estimated birth time (which means nothing, because you aren't given an estimated birth time, and labor in and of itself can and often does take more than one day). But if at 9 months into a 10 month gestation period, someone needs or wants an abortion, sure. It's their life and body, not mine. And making that illegal or impossible is a causality that results in casualties.

I disagree on inaction vs action. Your description implies that in this context literally everything is an "action" which defeats the purpose of even drawing a distinction. There is a distinction, perhaps complex, involving intent, but there is most certainly one.

They definitely attempt to give you an approximate date range in which you are expected to give birth? I've heard expecting mothers reference the timeline in that way. And the 1 hour should have been an obvious thought experiment, but it seems like you got the point by extending it out to weeks.

If you're okay with someone "aborting" a fetus 8 1/2 months into a 9 month pregnancy, then that answers my question. It's surprisingly difficult to get people to admit that they are okay with late term at-will abortions (ie no medical reason, just preference). Most people are not willing to admit that. But that's all it comes down to. If you're okay with basically any abortion prior to birth then that resolves the logical debate here, and that's all this was about, whether people would logically defend their position, and what that defense would be.

Everything is an action and a choice. You make decisions and then act on them, even if that decision is to not to do things.

But I've already told you, gestating a fetus is not an inaction, and there are no "thought experiments", because people, actual, living, existing, human beings that have lives and families and jobs and often other children, are dying.

Sure everything is an action in a metaphysical sense, but your examples are simply not applicable. If you choose not to drive to work, and you not being the first car at an intersection means someone else is hit by a train, is that your fault? Did you cause that? There was no intent there. Aborting a fetus is an intentional act, that willfully kills the fetus. Perhaps that intent is what better defines the difference between the two.

Anyway, if you're not willing to discuss thought experiments and principles, then you're not really able to engage in a rational debate to begin with. It's fine for you to hold your beliefs, but if you're upset at having to support them via reasonable discourse, then its pretty clear that you're not that dedicated to them to begin with.